Wanna bet that the original story concept or assignment was to prove that it was poor blacks who were bearing a disproportionate burden by acting as cannon fodder, and that the reporters and editors were miffed that the data did not support their preconceptions? No doubt they were then faced with the typical New York Times dilemma - do we resort to the outright lie and go ahead with the original story line even though it is not supported by the facts, or do we huddle for a few moments and devise a different way to spin the facts in a way that is still calculated to do maximum damage by portraying the United States as a land of limited opportunity and no hope...
Uh, I hate to bust your bubble, but there are many of poor blacks in rural counties. For example, the Black Belt of Alabama, and the general region of the Mississippi Delta. I don't think the argument can be made that Lowndes County is somehow a pillar of urban sophistication by any means.